October 4, 2023 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

The site is 32.6 acres and has 296 sq. ft. of leasable space. The current site has very little landscaping or shade trees. The site is a major prime commercial corner. The surrounding uses are residential, commercial and business uses. Mr. McDonough testified that the buildings proposed break up the mass and buffer the proposed signs. The proposed drive though is something that has gained in popularity since the Pandemic. The overall development area is not being expanded but 335,199 sq. ft. of buildings are being added, all are proposed permitted uses. As to the proposed variances, Mr. McDonough testified that there are three types of variances: the setbacks, Mr. McDonough testified that the satellite buildings breaks up the mass and trigger the need for the setback variances as any outer building would require setback relief, parking relief, wall height and sign package. The relief requested as under the c (2) variance standards where the benefits must out weight the detriments. While there is some hardship reasons present under the c(1) criteria, mostly the requested variances are under c(2). Mr. McDonough also stated that the Pullen case suggests that the Board must look at the project as a whole. There are numerous positives for the project as it will improve the overall center, substantially improve the aesthetic, improve the vitality of the center and will also provide environmental improvements. The fundamental provisions under the MLUL that apply to the variance relief are paragraphs a) general welfare, g) variety, i) aesthetic improvement and m) efficient use of land. The project furthers the goal of the Master Plan by balancing economic development and environmental practices and advances both goals. Mr. McDonough testified that the benefits are substantial and negatives are minimal. The project provides improvement of pedestrian safety, improved parking, circulation, and job generation. The overall parking provided meets ITE current standards. As for building setbacks, the building positioning brings the center out to the road and attracts the public. The side yard setbacks are mitigated by the additional landscaping and the rear is a small expansion for the loading docks. The space between the main buildings and building A is 90.3 ft (150 ft is required), between A and B is 38 ft (150ft is required) and from B to Mavis is 54.2 feet. The

expansion for the loading docks. The space between the main buildings and building A is 90.3 ft (150 ft is required), between A and B is 38 ft (150ft is required) and from B to Mavis is 54.2 feet. The entire site design will operate safely. Initially, 1202 parking spaces were proposed but that has dropped to 1197 spaces (1476 are required). The loading docks are 12 proposed and 34 are required. Mr. McDonough opined that it is unnecessary to have additional loading docks because the loading areas provided meet the demand. The drive-through in the front yard is for a permitted use and they are not looking for a fast-food restaurant. The 2 ft. setback deviation on the drive through is the minimum and consistent with what is at the site. The landscape islands are required for every 20 spaces but the area is shaded by the tree canopies on the islands. As for the design related variances. The lighting required is below .03-foot candles and the proposed light poles of 25 feet (18 ft. are permitted) is a safety interest because by going higher they achieve the same effect and minimize the number of fixtures. The need for the retaining wall of 13 ft was explained by the engineer.